I'd be interested to see results from pre-CFS kernels.
Not that FreeBSD hasn't made major performance improvements.
Also, I think that a database test isn't a complete picture. For example, some OSes like IRIX or Mac OS X perform very well on streaming of local video and audio, but I wouldn't benchmark Oracle or PostgreSQL on either.
And I like the article summary stating that FreeBSD may now be considered "a serious performance contender". Like FreeBSD was 1000% slower than Linux? Most servers spend their time spinning their wheels anyway, generally I'd rather look at security, how it handles under load and other metrics than whatever "performance" is considered in this instance. Linux is good for some things, BSD for others. About the only really good news here is that MySQL performance is actually adequate. As MySQL has always bee
Acoording TFA, FreeBSD didn't even have proper SMP support until relatively recently. Until 5.0, released in 2003, only one CPU could run kernel code at once. (To be fair, I think Linux still hasn't fully got rid of its own Big Kernel Lock, but...)
Having a threaded kernel or having fine-grained locking is hardly a reasonable barrier for "proper SMP support." If I have two processors and they can be both running code at the same time, it's SMP support - everything else is just icing.
On virtually every CPU bound application, the time is spent not in the kernel, but in userland.
The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job
application form.
-- Stanley J. Randall
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that FreeBSD hasn't made major performance improvements.
Also, I think that a database test isn't a complete picture. For example, some OSes like IRIX or Mac OS X perform very well on streaming of local video and audio, but I wouldn't benchmark Oracle or PostgreSQL on either.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
About the only really good news here is that MySQL performance is actually adequate. As MySQL has always bee
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having a threaded kernel or having fine-grained locking is hardly a reasonable barrier for "proper SMP support." If I have two processors and they can be both running code at the same time, it's SMP support - everything else is just icing.
On virtually every CPU bound application, the time is spent not in the kernel, but in userland.